Jump to content

Talk:Amber Rudd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.26.166.127 (talk) at 20:37, 7 September 2019 (Amber Rudd resigns as Work and Pensions Secretary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Amber Rudd resigns as Work and Pensions Secretary

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49623737

Amber has resigned, saying she cannot "stand by" while "loyal moderate Conservatives are expelled".

In her resignation letter, she said she no longer believed leaving the EU with a deal was the government's "main objective".

She described the sacking of 21 Tory MPs on Tuesday as an "assault on decency and democracy".

Amber Rudd resigns as Home Secretary

I think 10 Downing Street confirms this minute that Amber Rudd has resigned as Home Secretary. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Is she still Minister for Women & Equalities?

Has she resigned from that position simultaneously? I'd assume so. LordYarnspinner (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC) LordYarnspinner (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LordYarnspinner: Her letter to the PM did not specify a resignation from that post, however on the 30th April, the role was given to Penny Mordaunt, so she effectively ceased to be minister for women and equalities on April 30th while she ceased to be home secretary on April 29th per the resignation letter. Hope that clears it up for you (sorry for the late reply, didn't notice your comment until now). Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the law related to the copyright of signatures. Here's what WP says:

Signature#Copyright

So I wonder a bit about the statement connected to the signature image on this page as the author decided that there cannot be any copyright as the whole information in the image is public knowledge. Personally I understand how this statement may be true but I also have my reservations. Maybe somebody knows for sure ... JB. --92.195.51.183 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@92.195.51.183: What exactly are you asking? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking if the statement/claim is correct that the image showing the signature does indeed not need a copyright or however I shall put it correctly. The link I gave shows that there might be a copyright under British law and I would intuitively resent a 3rd person to publish an image of my signature online without asking me for consent, expecting my signature to belong to me and any unauthorized reproduction to constitute abuse of some kind. At least that would make it easier for 3rd parties to falsify my signature. So if I assume that Amber Rudd did not authorize this image and its publication I wonder it this is acceptable/lawful. Actually by making that image the author of the image would become its creator and could claim his/her own copyright to the image ... of a 3rd parties signature. I just don't think this can be correct, but lawyer stuff is sometimes so far developed that one might miss something obvious. JB. --92.195.32.141 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]